Dear Chad and All, The question of what effect different woods have on lute tone is one which I am often asked but I don't have any easy answers.
But I just wanted to say something about yew. Some modern makers are convinced that lutemakers started to use yew because it was simply the ideal material, even though it was often difficult to get. There is no doubt it is an excellent material for lute backs, but I wonder whether its main importance was decorative. Nearly all of the old yew lutes are multi-rib instruments where the use of heart/sap yew gives a wonderfully stripey appearance - the lutes look almost as though they have twice as many ribs as they actually have. I just wonder whether this wood was prized because it was rare and beautiful, rather than because it was better acoustically than anything else? I can't find the source at the moment, but there is a letter from a lutemaker complaining that he could only get enough yew to make three or four lutes a year - so what did he make the other 996 lutes out of? We take it more or less for granted that the reason so many ivory or ebony lutes have survived is because of their price, rarity and decorative qualities, rather than because they were common in the past. I wonder whether yew comes into the same category (though it is undoubtedly a better material for the job than ivory or ebony). Best wishes, Martin Chad McAnally wrote: >Michael, >Fleta was a really interesting chap. Years ago I had chance to play a >colleague's Fleta, it almost played itself to was so co-operative!!! > >In lutes, I've read that 1.) the harder the wood the ribs are made of, the >louder the lute, and 2.) towards the end of the 16th century makers started to >use Yew for the ribs, simply because large amounts of it had been freed up >from military uses. It seems that the use of woods like ebony increased as >well. > > Were these makers looking for more forward projection in their instruments Or > was it just a matter of having new "exotic" materials to experiment with? ( > or both? ) Imagine the advertisements: "New for 1587 Ebony and Snakewood 7 > course models!!!" > >Chad > > > >Original Message ----- > From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: lute<mailto:[email protected]> ; Chad McAnally<mailto:[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:15 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > > I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less >important what the > back and sides are made of versus >how they are made;( ....within > reason....I wouldn't make >guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) > >I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still >be strong > enough to support to the soundboard seems the >real key. > > >Chad > > Chad, I second that emotion. Each wood contributes to the tone in one > way or another. But who can really say one is better than the other. Maple > makes great guitars and lutes, as does ebony or rosewood. > Lacote, thought so little of the effect of the back and sides that he > just used pine, with a veneer over it. > Fleta, actually made his own plywood from rosewood and spruce, for the > back, and sides, and used this on what he called his "international models", > to prevent cracking of the back. > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: "lute" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:50 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > Hi Tony, > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > >
